Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/93TAPE #1154 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 1993 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, December 1, 1993, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Eileen Fitz presiding. Council members present were Richard Neville, Hank Waibel, C.R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, Lon Overson, and Al Colvin. Council members Lynn Horton and Russ Johnson were absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Fitz and Invocation given by Reverend David Patten of Summit Avenue Presbyterian Church. CONSENT AGENUA None #0017 CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24,080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) December 1, 1993, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 171249, 171263 through 171419 in the total amount of $427,511.80. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT8 Mr. Colvin extended an invitation to his fellow Council members to the NAACP luncheon on Saturday, December 4, 11:30 A.M., at Olympic College. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Louis Mentor stated he hoped everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving. The Festival Of Trees was again a very successful event and raised a lot of money for Harrison Hospital. Earlier today he attended a meeting sponsored by the Department Of Transportation, which was held at the Bremerton School Administration building, where transportation issues were discussed. That meeting will continue until 8:00 P.M. this evening. He was pleased to report that the lights TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 2 of 26 on Fourth Street have been installed and are working. He thanked Bob Tulp and his crew from the Electronics Division for their hard work installing the lights. He reminded everyone of the City Hall Tree Lighting ceremony on Saturday, December 4, 5:00 P.M., the City Hall City Hall Tree lighting. On Friday, December 3, 6:00 P.M. Hospice will hold their second annual tree lighting on the 'boardwalk. On Tuesday, December 7, 9:55 A.M. the Pearl Harbor Day ceremony will be held to celebrate the 52nd anniversary Pearl Harbor Day. He related a note he received from Senator Slade Gorton that referenced mandates on cities and the fact that he is co- sponsoring a bill about Federal mandates. He was pleased that someone such as Senator Gorton was paying attention to the mandate issue who can do something about it. Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation that proclaimed December 7, 1993, as Pearl Harbor Recognition Memorial Day, so that we never forget this heritage of duty, honor and sacrifice for the preservation of freedom. Reverend John Eichmann of the Bremerton Serviceman's Center accepted the Proclamation. Reverend Biahmann accepted the Proclamation and introduced Master Chief Harry Nettles, Chief of the USS Cashmere Pollaski and Master Chief Dave Scott, Ships Safety Superintendent with the OHIO project, who assisted in planning the Pearl Harbor Day ceremony. Music for this event will be provided by the Farrigut Brass Band and the keynote speaker will be the Captain of the USS Alaska Blue Crew and Master of Ceremony will be Commander Rona, Captain of the USS Pollaski. Copies of the proclamation will be given out to those Pearl Harbor survivors attending this event. He invited everyone to attend this event and extended a special "thank you" to the Parks Department personnel and the Bremerton Police Department for their assistance. Following the ceremony, a reception will be held at the Serviceman's Center. Mr. Collins questioned the status of development of the USS Ross? Reverend Eichmann stated it was his understanding the keel laying would take place in late 1994 or early 1995. He looks forward the commissioning of the USS Ross and plans to attend that ceremony. President Fitz extended a "welcome" to Master Chief Dave Scott and Master Chief Harry Nettles. Don Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, announced the Christmas Market will open on December 4 and 5 in the Weir Building on 4th Street. At 5:00 P.M. that evening, Santa will arrive aboard a Fire Truck and the City Hall Christmas Tree will be lit. A new addition to downtown during the holiday season is the horse drawn carriage that is offering rides throughout the downtown area. On December 10-12 the Bremerton Yacht Club will have a Nautical Christmas Lane in the Marina. TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 3 of 26 A window decorating contest for decorated windows is presently underway downtown and the winners will be announced on Saturday evening at the Amy Burnett Gallery. President Fitz confirmed that the Hospice Tree Lighting would take place at 6:00 P.M. on December 3. Gordy Byrd, P.O. Box 930, announced from December 1 through December 18 Kitsap Transit will be offering free rides for anyone donating a can of food. All collected food items will be given out to the needy through local food banks. As of this date he has collected $14,603.82 towards his shelter for the homeless. He was somewhat disappointed that he could not find sufficient corporate sponsors to cover the cost of tee shirts that he handed out to the needy at the KCAP Thanksgiving Dinner. Ruth Shedwin, 6028 Fern Avenue NE, read into the record a letter she sent to Council President Eileen Fitz on July 4, requesting the City to sell to her a piece of property on "Birch Street", because it was her parents former residential area and her birth place. As of this date, she had not received a response to her July 4th letter. Joanna Stohrer, 1236 10th Street, representing Bremerton Investors Coalition, stated the group she is representing own investment properties in the area affected by the Navy/Puget Sound Naval Shipyard expansion. A meeting is scheduled on Thursday, December 2, 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, to discuss problems they have experienced while negotiating sale of property with the Navy. She thanked Councilman Collins for sponsoring the meeting in the City Hall facility. She extended an invitation to the City Council members and the general public as well. Those attending the meeting will include representatives from the Navy, Congressman Dicks' office, Director of the project and his staff along with a large group of property investors and homeowners. The local media has also been invited to attend and Senator Gorton has been informed of the situation and has pledge his support. The Coalition is concerned about the continuing deterioration of the neighborhood on Callow Avenue and Montgomery Avenue. The investors wish to conclude the negotiations as quickly as possible and as the Navy lease the properties they board them up, shut off all utilities and have created some sort of deteriorating situation in that area. The investors, those who own residential rentals in that area, have been receiving offers from the Navy well below what they feel is just compensation for what were profitable rentals. For Example, one homeowner was paid $48,000 for his three bedroom home on Montgomery Avenue- The Department of Transportation has been TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 4 of 26 contracted by the Navy to relocate the homeowners, businesses and tenants and they gave that homeowner an additional $27,000 to replace his home outside of that area. His Actual dollar compensation for his three bedroom home was $75,000. If that person had been an investor instead of a homeowner, he would have only received $48,000. The Investor Group wants to see fair compensation for all property owners .in that area, not just the homeowners and businesses. They are also looking for a speedy conclusion of the project, which has been on going since 1989. The longer the process goes on the less control the City and residents will have over the area. She expressed concern over the presence of drug and gang activity, which is spreading to other neighborhoods in West Bremerton. Shannon Cook, 256 Burwell Apt. 202, stated 4th Street looks very nice with the new lights and she was pleased the vacant store windows were being decorated with Christmas scenes. Lastly, she hoped everyone had a happy Thanksgiving. 6A - APPOINTMENTTO PARKS &RECREATION COMMI8SlON --VERNON A. SIMMONS, #AB93-229 There is a vacancy on the Parks & Recreation Commission due to the departure of Tony Jackson. It is recommended the vacancy be filled by Vernon A. Simmons. #0822 Public comment - none. Vicki Vanneman, Parks Director, stated Mr. Simmons is anxious to get started serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission and she views him as a valued member. She urged Council to confirm the appointment as presented. Mr. Colvin stated he has known Mr. Simmons since his birth and wished to convey to his fellow Council members that he is a person of good character. Mr. Nevills stated he hoped Mr. Simmons would bring his banking expertise to a rather strapped Parks Department budget. M/S/C/U(Neville/Colvin) to confirm the appointment of Vernon A. Simmons to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr. Colvin stated he felt it was wise and not necessary for those people speaking before Council to give out their home address due to the potential danger it could pose. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated there is nothing that requires people having to give out their address. If a person wishes to be provided follow up information, then they should sign a TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 5 of 26 card, which is located in the back of the Council Chambers, and submit it to the Council's Legislative Assistant. 6B - KITSAP COUNTY LAND USE PLAN -- AN INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION, #AB93-230 Kitsap County and each of its cities are reviewing and amending their comprehensive plans to bring them into compliance with the State's Growth Management Act. The new requirements of the Act include early and continuous public participation in the planning process and consistency between the plans of all jurisdictions. Since all lands surrounding Bremerton and immediately outside our city limits will be included in the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan and zoned by the County, it is important to coordinate our planning efforts to ensure than long-range plans and related capital improvement programs are coordinated and consistent with the goals and objectives for our Urban Growth Area and the entire county. Kitsap County DCD staff have offered numerous public workshops and open houses throughout the County and have offered to give our City Council an update of its progress. Ron Houqh, Planning Manager, stated he wanted Council to have some preliminary information prior to hearing the County's presentation. Information on growth management has been worked through the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Planning Commission over the past eight months with some information trickling up to the Council. Basically, the Growth Management Act requires the City to have the following: an on going citizen involvement program, which does exist and was adopted over a year ago; protection of sensitive areas and resource of land, which brought about adoption of an ordinance; urban growth areas...the County just adopted interim urban growth areas, implementation ordinances to follow; required plan elements: land us, transportation, housing, capital facilities and utilities; some additional optional elements: Introduction, which was drafted, The Vision For Bremerton (already reviewed by Council within the last month), citizen involvement (adopted over a year ago), goals (drafted and on its way through the Citizens Advisory Committee). They are also considering Parks and Recreation open spaces, community design and economic development. Mr. Hough provided a view graph that showed the summary of the growth management process. He pointed out in the center is the City's Comprehensive Plan, which contains multiple chapters that represent each of the elements the City is required to develop and the optional elements. Along with that, is the citizen involvement, establishment of the Urban TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 6 of 26 Growth Areas, which the County is working on and Urban Growth Management Agreement, which will probably come after the plan is developed so that land uses and services can be coordinated within the Urban Growth Area that is shared with the County, and then the protection of critical areas and resource lands, which is completed. The Introductory Communion Vision states are pretty well in order along with goals and they are addressing the SEPA process, which will continue throughout the process. The time line shows the process that starts with the 20-year Population Projects and then to the Kitsap Regional Planning Council allocation, development of County- wide Planning Policies and then on to the Citizens Advisory Committee where all the Comprehensive Plan elements are developed and from their to the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council. The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1986, and includes the following: Overview Element, Land Use Element, Natural Resources Element, Transportation Element, Public Services Element, Housing Element Economic Development Element. The mandatory Elements included: Element "A" - Introduction, Element "B" - The Vision For Bremerton; Element "C" Planning Goals, Element "D" - Citizen Involvement, Element "E"-Land Use, Shoreline Management Plan (Adopted), Critical Areas Ord. (Adopted), Element "F"- Transportation, Element "G"- Capital Facilities Plan Element, Element "H" - Utilities Element, Element "I" Housing. Further action will come about through making revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, SEPA Ordinance, developing a Subdivision Ordinance and Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA), as well as a few other things before they are totally done with this process. One of the first items addressed was the Land Use Inventory to find out what is current in place, and worked through that into workable statistics. The County Assessor's Map was used for mapping and calculations. Following that process, areas were then broken down into neighborhood sub-areas. The view graph Mr. Hough provided showed two areas within the City "A" and "B" "C" and "UA, UB, UC" in the unincorporated area. One of the findings from that process showed that residential land consists of 54% of the total land that is used. Another interesting fact that came out was 21% of the total area of the East Bremerton Land Use Inventory comprises streets and right-of-ways (public land), which is non-taxed. There is very little commercial use compared to the whole, but there is a lot of unincorporated and suburban land out in that area. When they develop a similar chart for Central and West Bremerton he expects to see more commercial and industrial uses. TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 7 of 26 Mr. Hough stated the next item has to do with Land Use Maps and they are working on coordinating categories so that the City cad look at its land use plan and see similar things going on in the County. The most Residential categories are the Urban Densities (Urban Low Density Residential 1 to 8 DU/Ac. density; Urban Medium Density Residential 8-18 U/Ac. density; Urban High Density Residential 18-43 DU/Ac. density), which they are using on their proposals for residential areas. In conclusion, the information he just presented should give Council a good idea of what they are doing, why and the need for consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Special Districts and consistency with the City's own plans and programs. Glen Gross, Kitsap County Department Of Community Development, introduced Jeff Smith, a Kitsap County Senior Planner, who would also be available to answer any questions Council may have following his presentation. The reason they asked for time in Council's Agenda is to share where the County has been in developing their Growth Management Plan, where they are at the present time and what they will be doing over the next several months to comply with the Growth Management Act by July 1994. Where they have been - as far back as 1990, when the Growth Management Act was first passed by the State Legislature, the County's Department of Community Development started what they called broad visioning or the beginning of a public participation process to move them towards a new Comprehensive Plan. They held visioning sessions that were general in nature, which gave them the chance to talk with the community about their concerns, where the County had been and where it was going. Approximately one year ago, they were at the point of working with the Planning Commission in developing the Comprehensive Plan. They decided early on to do a plan that made sense and one they could defend as complying with the Growth Management Act, however, they didn't try to take the Growth Management Act page by page/word-for-word and try to apply it to the County. They tried to look at what Kitsap County has in terms of land use and some other considerations and prepare a plan that they could defend, that made sense and would be a benefit to the community in the future. They took their Planning Commission through a long educational process starting with the rocks and dirt and built up. They brought in experts, starting with geology, soil science, hydrology, and wetlands science, who gave the Planning Commission some background in order to understand all of the relationships and consideration that need to go into development of a new Comprehensive Plan. When they reached the "surface", they TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 8 of 26 started looking at such things as roads, sewer and water systems, schools, fire, police, etc., again giving their Planning Commission the background they would eventually need to prepare the Comprehensive Plan. In July they received permission from the Planning Commission to present the draft Land Use Element that would be the beginnings of the new Plan, based on all of the previous informational sessions they had and on their best understanding of what the Growth Management Act requires and how it fits in the community. The Land Use Element consists of a brightly colored map and text. This Element is both text and map, and cannot be separated, are consistent and one is not more important than the other. In his opinion, the most powerful influence on the land use Element is another map that features the existing land use pattern in the County. That map was prepared by accessing the County Assessorts data files using their geographical system (computer generated map) showing ownership patterns and what is on the ground today. They present this map not to say "look how bad or how good" this is or any kind of value judgement. They are presenting it saying "this is the reality" they have to work with. They have categorized land uses by various planning classification systems that will lead logically to development of a new Comprehensive Plan and eventually to a new Zoning Ordinance. As an example, they put the lot sizes into specific ranges and color coded them accordingly so they can look at the map and see where lots of 1-2 1/2 acres in size with homes, 2 1/2 - 5 acres, 5-10 acres and where there are lots of less then 10 acres with no buildings. An example of that is reflected in the areas on the map that are all white. They have also noted on the map locations of major forested areas remaining in the County. Most of the development action has occurred on the east side of the County, which is not surprising because of the ferry service and highway systems. As one moves westward on the peninsula, there is still uncommitted land with open options for the community. Another thing that stands out to Planners when they view the this map is the necklace of development around the majority of the waterfront, green and fresh water. The development around the waterfront is of the nature that approaches urban densities. The lot sizes there tend to be within 1-3 lots per acre and this is comparable to a lot of development pattern in and around urban areas without the benefit of urban services in many cases. They understand the Growth Management Act in part because of the concern for water quality of Puget Sound. The County's draft Land Use Element tries to reconcile that and bring forth some designations on the draft Land Use Element to protect water quality in the future. TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 9 of 26 The first category he will address is -Waterfront Residential", as shown on the map as an orange color. Outside of urban areas, but areas that have already developed at a higher density, i.e. 1-3 units per acre, are being depicted waterfront residential and in the text they talk about the need to look at appropriate level of urban services, such as stormwater protection or even sanitary sewer, if it is necessaryto promote water quality. They do that not with the intent that those areas would be urban growth areas, which would not make a lot of sense, when you are talking about the entire outline of the County, but rather to recognize what is there today and try to protect the environment in the future. Behind those areas often times, depicted by the "cream" color, are areas that have developed so far at slightly lower density but still something more than rural. They call that a "suburban" designation and the lot size area is i dwelling per acre. Language is included in the text that calls for the concept called preplanning that tries to promote more orderly development in the future in and around these kinds of areas. The Growth Management Act does not have a category called "Waterfront Residential" nor "Suburban". The GMA only talks about "urban", "rural" and "resource land". Another category the City is probably interested in would be the (bright yellow color coded area) Urban Low Density in the text. Urban Low Density is defined as 1-8 dwellings per acre. They fully intend to develop a Zoning Map that will further refine that designation with 4 or more residential units that will vary in lot sizes from 1/2 acre downto 10,000 sq. ft. and all the way down to 5,500 sq. feet as a minimum lot size. They would apply those residential zones according to: (1) established residential character; (2) the ability of the service providers to provide services. They also encourage cluster development, not necessarily with a density increase, but cluster development or PUD design to promote a superior site design and neighborhood compatibility. They have two higher density residential proposals: (1) Urban Medium; (2) Urban High, which range in densities from 8-low all the way up to 43 units per acre. What they have heard time and time again since they started this process, is that there is a concern in the community about losing affordability. What they have heard from the experts is that one of the components of housing affordability most within our grasp is land cost. If slightly higher densities can be provided in selected locations, they can begin doing something about housing affordability. Also, compact development in and around the urban growth areas is one of the intents, as they understand it, of the GMA, especially along major transportation corridors near existing public services and facilities where it can be most easily and efficiently served. Another major TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 10 of 26 theme that comes up during their public meetings (approximately 50), is concern about economic development and diversification. They have developed some proposals, such as Industrial Park and Business Park, and show a major area west of Silverdale on Newberry Hill Road as a specific area for future development of that sort. It is their intent to submit a draft Planned Map that lends some predictability so that the landowner and neighboring properties know what to expect. They believe predictability is one key to promoting economic development and another is responsiveness as a community. His definition of responsiveness is to build into the text of their Comprehensive Plan the ability to respond to potential industries that might want to local here within a timely manner. To accomplish that, they have techniques, such as Industrial Cymbals and some other policy type language. Where are they Going - Kitsap County intends to meet the July 1994 deadline and hope to be in public hearings beginning in April of 1994. Prior to that date, they are developing all other required elements under the GMA. Counties must also provide a Rural Element as part of the GMA, which is being worked on at this time. The most difficult element to craft, other than the Land Use Element, is the Capital Facilities Element. The Transportation Element will yield a component of the Capital Facilities Element, which is the element that will test whether or not the plan can be built, whether or not the community has the financial wherewithal to actually insure that adequate water, sewer, Fire and Police protection, schools, parks and recreation areas will be present by the time this plan calls for growth. As this plan builds out, those facilities need to be in place. What is being done at the present time and over the next several months, is to work with 35 Water Districts, 12 Fire Districts, 6 school districts, 4 cities and other special service proriders to develop a consistent coordinated Capital Facility Plan to accompany the draft Land Use Plan. The Capital Facility Plan has to be consistent with the Land Use Plan and if they find the Land Use Plan calls for capital facilities that they don't identify funding sources, then they need to revisit the Land Use Plan. President Fitz pointed out for clarification that not all of the land shown on the map shaded in "green" is buildable due to its being City of Bremerton watershed property and some of the land is located on steep slopes and ravens. She questioned how much property is left in Kitsap County, especially in rural Kitsap County, to be developed? Mr. Gross stated President Fitz was correct. Some of the land is City watershed and some is unbuildable due to the topography. He i TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page ll of 26 did not have a simple answer, but it would depend on what would be built. What they have done in their urban growth areas is to do a capacity analysis of the land contained within that area. They pulled up all the acreage of undeveloped land within that area, made some assumptions about what the densities might be and how much land would be needed to accommodate future homes. They concluded that even with the 20-year population forecast they had to work with, they felt comfortable that area would be able to accommodate growth; and the existing undeveloped land within all those "bright yellow" shaded areas would be available for urban growth. The rest of the growth could occur in the rural residential areas. One statistic that might help is the fact in calculating the existing land uses and totalling up their vacant land category (undeveloped land less than 10 acres in size without a house) amounts to 19% of their entire County land base. Totaling up all of the residential (existing, used) land amounts to 23%, so there is almost as much land undeveloped/vacant as there is developed residential land. President Fitz stated it seemed to her that a driving force behind anything is the amount of water available to the citizens of Kitsap County and would be an important player in driving the City's development. She questioned if there is an inventory of water available? Mr. Gross stated 80% of the people in Kitsap County obtain their water from a ground source. At the present time, there is a Groundwater Management study being conduced by the P.U.D. There are several other agencies involved with that study, including Kitsap County. Storage areas for ground water are identified through that study. Critical recharge areas (where rain water is absorbed back into the ground into underground storage areas) are yet to be identified. They are working with that process during development of the Comprehensive Plan. The GMA does not make any allowances for excuses and they have to develop the Plan with the best available information. Overall, the PUD tells them there is enough water for the 20- year forecast. There may be problems with distribution of that water supply and work might have to be taken to develop distribution of that resource. Even as they meet the July 1994 deadline, they expect to continue studying and developing data which can be incorporated through an amendment to the Plan. Finally, the water as a Capital Facility has to be included in that Capital Facility Element, therefore, the County must work with each of the Districts to insure that they have at least a six year program to provide enough water to accommodate the growth that the Plan has allocated. Mr. Collins questioned if the Comprehensive Plan being developed will have force of law or will it be the normal TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 12 of 26 concept of a Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Gross stated it will have a force of law and that is one of the big changes that GMA has brought to the County. The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted under the GMA, has to be followed by development regulations, Zoning Ordinance, that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Collins questioned the deadline for the County's Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Gross stated the GMA deadline is the same, July 1994, for the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The GMA does make provision for up to six months extension on the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Collins questioned if the requirements for changes to the Zoning will have to go back to the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Gross re- emphasized the zoning must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Collins stated he experienced "heart- burn" over two things Mr. Gross stressed: (1) the County wants urban development; and (2) high density up to 40 units per acre. In City planning it is just the opposite, as you move toward City borders the density is reduced. Mr. Gross stated he agreed that they need to work on consistency between the City and the County. Mr. Collins questioned how would that be done? Mr. Gross stated staff will start the process by working together as closely as possible agreeing on the designations and density of ranges and then looking at how they are being applied across the border. Eventually, it will come up through the Planning Commission and be adopted by the Board of Commissioners. If there are specific areas that need to be looked at the present time, he suggested they be pointed out for further review. Mr. Collins stated Mr. Gross discussed undeveloped land (10 acres or less) being earmarked for future development so that cluster building can take place. He felt that killed any kind of development inside the City because what we have to do and what a developer would have to do in order to put something together for that kind of development, would be to work with 3-10 different owners. However, what the County is saying is to "come out to Mr. Jones' farm and build cheap houses at that location". Mr. Collins stressed something has to be done to stop such action that is already evident around City borders. The City is seeing zero infill because of either the Plan or lack of Plan that is happening in the County. The issue with GMA is to bring people together. Another thing that concerned him was why is the PUD doing the study of water. His rational is the PUD is not a part of the County, it is its own taxing district and the County is using his tax dollar from his property for a County project. He questioned if such action was appropriate? Mr. Gross explained the Water Study is County- wide and includes incorporated areas. He was not sure why the PUD is the lead agency because that was determined prior to his employment with the County. The Department Of Ecology TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 13 of 26 (DOE) will designate the agency that the community puts forward as the one they want designated for this particular study. The Study is funded through DOE and comes with specific criteria. Mr. Overson questioned the completion date for the Capital Facility Plan? Mr. Gross stated the Capital Facility Plan needs to be a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Overson questioned if the Capital Facility Plan shouldn't lead? Mr. Gross stated in his mind it is the second most important element, with the Land Use Element being the most important. Mr. Overson questioned, under the GMA, is the County required to establish numbers to meet within the next 20 years? Mr. Gross explained the population forecast that they have to plan for urban growth comes from the Office Of Financial Management (OFM) and he recalled the original official forecast was approximately 75,000 people over the next 20 years. The Kitsap Regional Planning Council, which takes in all municipal governments and County government in Kitsap County, chose to adopt an official forecast to plan for at a slightly higher number (91,000) than OFM's over the next 20 years. Mr. Overson questioned how many of the 91,000 would be in the unincorporated areas of the County? Mr. Gross stated what Mr. Overson was referring to was Kitsap Regional Planning Council's adoption, as part of their County-wide Planning, a policy that says to try to target growth so that 2/3rd of the future growth occurs in urban areas and 1/3 of that growth occurs in rural areas. He believes that urban areas mean cities as well as the urban growth areas around them. He understands that policy to be that they should put together a plan that will allow 2/3rds of future growth to occur in the cities and surrounding urban growth areas and 1/3 of the growth to occur in the rural areas. Mr. Overson questioned the present Comprehensive Plan's capacity for growth? Mr. Gross stated he did not have an answer for Mr. Overson on that point. He did not think it would be particularly relevant to any thing he has to do to comply with the GMA. He did know that the urban growth areas placed on the draft plan could accommodate the 20-year growth forecast. Mr. Overson questioned if Mr. Gross or the County has planned for significantly more growth than what is in the GMA? Mr. Gross stated he did not believe Mr. Overson's statement was correct. He believes the County is planning for the same growth as the City of Bremerton, as adopted by the Kitsap Regional Planning Council. Mr. Overson asked Mr. Gross if he could demonstrate to the City Council that the County's present plan provides for approximately matching the GMA numbers? He believes the County is providing for a great deal more capacity than growth management. Mr. Gross stated what he is saying is the urban TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 14 of 26 growth areas can accommodate the 20-year forecast. He could not agree with Mr. Overson on that point. From his prospective, the County is not planning for that growth, rather they put together the land use draft that will accommodate the urban growth that they need to accommodate. Because there is so much developable land in the County, more people than the number forecast could populate those areas. Mr. Overson questioned if Walmart was expected to develop in this area soon? Mr. Gross stated he did not have any personal knowledge abut Walmart locating in the County. Mr. Overson questioned why is Walmart already planned yet the Comprehensive Plan isn't finished? He also questioned if the County had adopted a Critical Lands Ordinance? Mr. Gross explained interim Critical Lands regulations were adopted as required by the GMA. He expected a Critical Lands Ordinance would follow the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He anticipated working on that segment about the same time the new Zoning Ordinance is developed. Mr. Colvin questioned the definition of resource land and what percent it represented within the County? Mr. Gross explained he referenced GMA terminology for "agriculture land" and "forest land", both of which need to be long-term commercially significant and mineral resource land, which has significant commercial qualities of sand, rock, gravel and mineral deposits. What they have done with their proposed draft is designate lands for forest (green color) in the western and northern areas of the County. They are not designating agriculture lands of long- term commercially significant because they could not find any. Existing sites that have a valid Department Of Natural Resources (DNR) surface mining permit are mapped and shown by the "gray" colors What they intend to do is follow up that particular part of the plan with a geological study to further evaluate where other commercial quality deposits might be located. Mr. Waibel stated as he listened to Mr. Gross talk about urban growth areas, he had the impression he was describing urban as something different than incorporated. Historically and through the rest of the State and counties those two concepts are synonymous and he believed the GMA intended them to remain synonymous. He questioned if a new definition was creeping in that is in variance with growth management? Mr. Gross stated he hoped not and he did not intend to deviate from the GMA. What they tried to do is to identify the areas, according to their analysis of the existing land use pattern, that are already characterized by urban growth and add those to the incorporated cities as urban growth areas. Mr. Waibel stated it appeared to him that the GMA was to make sure those urban TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 15 of 26 areas were incorporated, and if in fact they were not incorporable, they should revert back to rural areas. He questioned if he was interpreting the plan correctly? Mr. Gross stated he would not say Mr. Waibel was incorrect, but what they are trying to do is to make sense of the reality that they have to work with. There are areas within this County that are already developed at urban densities that may or may not be associated with cities. The common sense approach would be to identify an existing situation that needs to be recognized and start seeing where, how and when necessary urban services can be provided to serve that urban density and to not ignore as if it didn't exist. Mr. Waibel questioned if the plan encourages those urban areas to incorporate? Mr. Gross stated the plan does not encourage or discourage incorporation. Mr. Waibel stated he believed that was the intent. 7A - ORDINANCE (SECOND READING) SETTING MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE'S SALARY RANGE, #AB93-227 Mr. Collins stated he would "abstain" from voting on this issue due to his not hearing the prior discussion. Public comment - none. #2805 M/S/C(Colvin/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance No. 4438 on second reading setting the Municipal Court Judgets salary and benefits, and repealing Ordinance No. 4345. Vote on motion: In Favor: Colvin, Fitz, Neville, Dawkins Abstain: Overson, Waibel, Collins 8A - PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT -- PRIVATE STREETS SERVING 4 OR MORE LOTS, #AB93-231 The Planning Commission has recommended amending the Zoning Code to allow private streets to serve 4 or more lots if the City Engineer agrees the current and future circulation patterns are not negatively affected. The ordinance change also gives the City Engineer authority over design standards for public and private streets. The current ordinance prohibits public streets from serving 4 or more lots. Current policy does not impose the City's design guidelines on private streets. Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, pointed out an error in the Summary section of the Agenda Bill: second to last sentence should read "The current ordinance prohibits private streets from serving 4 or more lots". What he is bringing to Council is the Planning Commission's recommendation as follows: TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 16 of 26 "BE IT RESOLVED, the Bremerton Planning Commission, after considering oral and written testimony, and staff report recommends to the City Council APPROVAL of: I. Amend the definition Chapter (2.02,050(5)(11) of "Street" to allow private streets to serve any number of lots. A. City Engineer to recommend determination of whether a public street would be created. The following criteria will be considered in making the decision: 1. Current and/or future circulation pattern of the area. B. The City Engineer to recommend the design standards and specifications of all proposed streets whether the streets are proposed to be private or public. II. Amend the Planned Unit development Specific Development Standards Chapter (21.02.500 e.) to allow private streets to serve three or more lots if approved by the City Engineer on the basis of criteria the same as I above. III. Whereas the Planning Commission believes the development of flexible development standards for public and private streets, paths and sidewalks in the City of Bremerton is of utmost importance, and Whereas the Bremerton Planning Commission has recommended approval of a Zoning Text Amendment Which would allow the development of private streets to serve 3 or more lots after recommendation from the City Engineer; and Whereas the City Engineer must recommend such development without the benefit of adopted flexible standards; Now therefore, the Bremerton Planning Commission does hereby request the City Engineer to report the following at the November Planning Commission meeting: 1) Schedule of development of flexible street standards for public and private roads; TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 17 of 26 2) Conceptual ideas which would form the basis of flexible street standards for public and private streets; and 3) Conceptual criteria for determining if streets should be public or private. Mr. Pratt noted the City Engineer did make a report to the Planning Commission at their last meeting that discussed a schedule and agenda. As a result of that discussion, Design Guidelines For Private Streets In Residential Areas were developed. The issue before Council, at this time, is whether or not the Zoning Ordinance can allow private streets to serve 3 or more lots. The Design Guidelines, which are included with the Agenda documentation, are simply advisory and are not proposed to be formally adopted within the Zoning Code. The major issues involved in this and what the Planning Commission heard were: (1) how private streets give control of access to a private party. If there is a private street in a development, public access may be denied. It is at the discretion of the owner and typically the home ownership will be a homeowners group made up of a series of homeowners in a plat and not a City Council decision whether or not that street can be traveled on. (2) Typically, private streets have been thought of as being developed according to design guidelines, durability of the asphalt and width of them being controlled by the private developer and not by the City. The intent of this Zoning Ordinance amendment is to say that the design standards for private streets will continue to be under control of the recommendation of the City Engineer as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The theory they have is that whether a street is private or public, it still needs to be designed to carry traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, safely and it needs to be durable. (3) Cost of maintenance - City funds, general and otherwise, maintain only public streets. If a street is private, it will be maintained by the private owner. A new issue involved in private streets is the issue of security. A number of people feel strongly that private streets with limited access imparts a sense of security to the neighborhood. Security can be achieved one of several ways. Most private streets will not be connected with public streets and will not be through streets (more of a cul-de-sac or series of cul-de-sacs). Secondly, many private streets that they see today are proposed to be developed with gates and controlled as security gates by homeowners. The issue of TAPE #1154 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 18 of 26 security is one that isn't easily answered one way or the other. His best professional recommendation to Council is that you can secure your street to those that enter it, but if you are only securing your street and hoping that will solve a crime problem, you are not doing the task right. Securing the streets is one of many things that can be done to control crime and if only the street is secured it will probably not control crime. If private streets are approved and they are not part of a larger circulation, the community can be seriously impacted both by the ease of travel by traffic and pedestrians and also by the subjective perception of the community. If a street does not link to an adjacent property, lots of time you do not encourage a sense of unity and a sense of partnership with adjacent parcels, but end up with a series of enclaves thinking indenpendantly. In some cases, this is ok and in some cases losing that sense of community is detrimental to the neighborhood. Most of the development parcels in the City are what they call remanent...pieces that do not fit the typical grid pattern and don't lend themselves to be developed as through streets. The odds and ends that weren't evenly developed in the first place and what they are trying to do now is to develop particularly hard to develop lots. In order to do that, there are times when there is only one way in and one way out and a through street would be inappropriate. TAPE #1155 The alternatives to the recommended action by the Planning Commission would be to not amend the Zoning Code, leaving it as is, and requiring pubic streets on all subdivisions serving more than 3 lots. Or, to table the amendment pending development of an area circulation network and new flexible street development standards. Mark Kullman, Pac-Tech Engineering, Inc., 3721 Kitsap Way, stated over the past 6-8 years his firm has had several opportunities to look a projects in the City and in the County that desired private streets. Because the City does not allow a private street for 3 or more lots, it presented a stumbling block to move some projects forward for development in the City of Bremerton. In reviewing the information in Council's Agenda, he was surprised that much of the discussion centers on private streets as a way to provide a gated community and protection in keeping other people out. In his experience, he worked on only two gated communities in his career as a Civil Engineer. However, he has worked on many projects that had private streets for a number of different reasons. Some of those reasons may be as simple as wanting to be in a position to control the landscaping in and around the street TAPE #1155 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 19 of 26 environment to create their own sense of place. Many members of the development community think that the home is sold not when you enter the front door of the home, but rather when one enters the project or individual piece of property...the entry statement/market statement, landscaping, etc. They are finding in studying communities and projects that the demographics aspects are very important...who is the market aimed at, retirement, entry level, single family, single person, never attached, etc. He noted 25% of home buyers today are single individuals (not ever married). He emphasized the focus needs to be placed on what that market is looking for in their communities. Some find it very important have a homeowners' association that will take care the street landscaping as well as front yard landscaping and they like the sense of place that is created by a private street, not necessarily a gated community. Therefore, he believes private streets are important in the residential development industry as it is viewed today. He reminded Council that it was not too many months ago that he had been before them with a project that looked to having features that provided a sense of place and security. The Planning Commission's discussion on this item revolved around the possibility of tabling the item in order that a comprehensive look could be given to public street standards and private street standards and then bring an amendment forward in a very comprehensive fashion. However, the Planning Commission remembered that there were projects in the process of looking for an opportunity to investigate, through the Engineer, Planning Commission and City Council, opportunities for private streets. He urged Council to not table this item to allow for a more comprehensive discussion. He hoped the information presented would be found reasonable because the City Engineer will be reviewing the durability, emergency vehicle access requirement, etc., and all the things important in determining a streetscape. He has no concerns over the issues the City Engineer has presented in this proposal. He also supports providing public access to parks and other public facilities that may need access through private streets. He hoped the City was not being overly restrictive or that the language does not sound overly restrictive. He referenced Item B under Design Guidelines for Private Streets In Residential Areas, and hoped he was not reading into that item that there were only two kinds of cases (infill lot size or environmental constraints) that could be reasons for considering allowing private streets. He believed the reasons for approving private streets can be more inclusive that those stated in Item B as cited above. What the developers are looking for is the opportunity to investigate private streets and their application in development of residential properties in the TAPE #1155 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 20 of 26 City of Bremerton. Lastly, he conveyed a concern of people sitting in the audience wishing to provide comments after the discussion has been closed off from additional input. He hoped if any Council member had questions for him, that he would be allowed to respond. Mr. Colvin offered to call upon him if he wished to readdress the Council during their discussion. Merv Richardson, Merrick Incorporated, developers of the Sierra Court Plat located off of Sylvan Way, stated he believes private streets are essential to the growth of the City of Bremerton and they need to get moving forward on their plat proposal. Private streets have been found to be very useful in cities throughout this country. It allows flexibility in width, design standards and allows the development of pieces of property that would otherwise not able to be developed under the current City of Bremerton standards. Bremerton is spotted with small properties that cannot be developed, for a number of reasons, because of the present design standard restrictions. The National Homeowners Association as well as other planners have found that such wide streets are not needed and only creates a lot of hard surface and more storm water runoff, etc. If a street is designated as "private" it takes the burden of maintenance off the City. His firm first started talking with City planners in May of 1993, held a neighborhood meeting in June and at that time thought the plat process would be finished by now and starting to build new homes by January 1994. On August 17, they met with the Planning Commission, who recommended approval of their plat with a variance, as had been done before. By the time the issue came before Council in September, the City Attorney issued a legal option to not continue approving variances because they would be violating their own ordinance. Now, it is December 1 and if approved they should be able to go back to the Planning Commission to get their recommendation for approval on their plat and then reappear before Council some time in January. He emphasized a lot of money had already gone into design, engineering, holding costs on the land, as well as $3,440.00 paid to the City as an application fee. Mr. Richardson pointed out the application fee for a similar project in the County would be approximately $700. He hoped the City Council would approve some flexibility in design standards for private streets, which can be provided by the City Planner and Engineer. He urged Council taking action to approve this item at this time so that they can get their project moving ahead. Mr. Colvin requested for clarification the definition of a "private street". Mr. Pratt explained when a piece of TAPE #1155 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 21 of 26 property is platted or subdivided into several lots, the City requires the street to be identified and set aside. Once identified and set aside on the Plat Map, the question is whether the City will ownthat street or the homeowners and/or private party would own the street. That is the question before Council... do you want, for plats developed in 3 or more parcels, the property owner to build the street and deed it to the City as right-a-way for the City to own and maintain or does the City agree that it is suitable for the community (private party) to own that street. A subset of that is we are also saying the Zoning Ordinance would be written to give the City Engineer authority to determine the specifications of this street regardless of whether it is public or private. Mr. Colvin stated he agreed that streets should be built to specifications, but what about a driveway? Mr. Pratt explained a driveway can serve up to three lots. The Ordinance is written such that if a driveway serves more than three lots it must be a public street. Additionally, if an apartment building is constructed, whatever road serves that facility is classified as a driveway. Mr. Colvin questioned if someone could have one lot with multiple housing? Mr. Pratt stated the Merrick proposal has 20 proposed homes. If that property could have been developed with 20 houses and it could have been developed as one piece of. property, which means it could have been sold as condominiums or rented, that driveway would serve one lot. However, when they chose to subdivide the property so that each homeowner receives a piece of property, the Zoning Code kicks in and requires the development of a public street. Mr. Colvin stated if a private street was built to City specifications, what would be the reason to deny that it become a private street, if it serves more than 3 residences? Randv Witt, City Engineer, stated currently it is the Zoning Code that does not allow private streets for more than 3 residences. Several people gave testimony that the proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance is important for their developments or projects as long as the private street meets theguidelines set out by the City. Mr. Collins stated he understands why the developers are interested in the proposed change, but he is looking into the future 10-20 years from now. When the City sets standards and. street standards are used, we know that 20-40 years from now there will be a street and not a path. He felt that if a road were designated as "private", he would not have that reassurance for that same period of time. He referenced things that have happened on the East side of Bremerton before the second bridge was built. He questioned is this proposal good business, looking far into the future,to not use the best TAPE #1155 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 22 of 26 established standards that are available? Mr. Witt stressed he does not want streets to fall apart physically, if it is a private street. Mr. Collins added his concern about the possibility of the "neighborhood" falling apart as well. Mr. Witt stated he believes if the standards required were clearly stated in the guidelines. He had not heard any dissention among the developers on what is being required. In response to the concern about making modifications on a case-by-case basis, at no point does the thickness of the street or the structural integrity of the street go away. He felt it was his duty in serving the public that the quality of the street should be the same for public as private. When talking about street width, that is the point where it becomes more subjective. There are street standards that even for private streets he intends to use as starting points. There will be instances where that standard may not be appropriate, topography, infill lot sizes, etc. Those are the times when he and the Director Of Community Development will have to review proposals to determine what will work that won't cause a problem later. Mr. Collins stated he believed the City has good planning and engineering judgement, however, he is concerned about their future successors and will they view this in the same way. Mr. Witt stated he hoped that they would. Mr. Pratt stated from a community standpoint if the parcels being proposed for private street are situated in such a manner that it clearly is not part of any future development that may occur around it and there is very little chance of circulation occurring, then, for both a physical circulation pattern and metaphysical sense of community, a private street would be appropriate. But, if they are being asked to allow a private street on a parcel that is in the middle of numerous lands yet to be developed or subdivided and there is potential for development to occur in an open integrated circulation pattern, then it would be a mistake to create a private street, which would remain an enclave with other pieces developing around it. The proposal before Council at this time says that the City Engineer will make a recommendation based on his understanding of the circulation needs in the future. That recommendation would then be heard by the Planning Commission and then passed on to the City Council. At that point, Council can agree or disagree with the City Engineer on those issues. It is a relative safe amendment because they are just asking for the opportunity to ask for private streets, not mandating that issue. The one drawback is until they have a firm set of guidelines to direct that decision, Council is at the mercy of the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development being as consistent as possible on a case-by-case basis. Frequently their decisions are based on an array of dynamics relating to it, TAPE #1155 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 23 of 26 not all of which are straight forward, reasonable, rational, and physical. If they want to get a section of neighborhood developed, they won't get hung up on whether or not there is a private road or street. At that point, whether the street is private or public may suffer because of other dynamics. That is the only concern that he and the City Engineer have that they will be able to monitor the situation and maintain some consistency and stability until there is an adopted set of firm guidelines. The Planning Commission did hear that concern and they are monitoring the City Engineers work and have requested that he come back and further discuss the issue with them at least one more time. Mr. Waibel pointed out the need for the Zoning Ordinance to be the way it is today was based on the need to have standards for streets. This was an easy way to make sure there were certain standards for anything that served more than three houses, however, it was not flexible. He agreed with the need for the City to be more flexible in the future. He did have concern with the wording on recommendation #1B, in that for public safety reasons and future maintenance reasons and those kinds of things we need to have a guarantee that specifications will in fact upheld within the specific development. As written, the wording says that the City Engineer will recommend, however, what is in the ordinance is a little different than it being a recommendation. He wants to make sure that the authority to "recommend" is included in the ordinance that is developed. In fact, if the City Engineerrs standards are flexible to meet a specified, they have to be followed for that development. Mr. Witt explained the street width is included on the plat and one condition of the plat approval is that the pavement is built. Mr. Waibel stated what is being stated in this proposal is that the City Engineer makes recommendations to the City Council. Council needs to recognize they need to uphold those standards and he wants to make sure that is part of this discussion. He wished Council could say the City had done a good job as the public entity in maintaining City streets and standards, but that is not the case. He views approving this proposal as a way to help the City by letting other people help maintain some of the roads. But, he wanted to make sure that the City maintains the integrity of public streets. Mr. Witt stated he did not disagree with Mr. Waibel's comments. Mr. Overson stated some times developers come into an area and make as much money as they can with the smallest real estate parcel and then go home and leave any problems behind. He questioned if the standards for public streets require TAPE #1155 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 24 of 26 sidewalks? Mr. Witt stated yes. Mr. Overson questioned if the standards for private streets require sidewalks? Mr. Witt stated under A - Street Development Standards, the intent is that a private street will be developed the same way as a public street. Mr. Overson questioned if it is the intent or will it be by law? As Mr. Waibel pointed out, he felt there was weak wording that would allow some slick developers to take advantage of the City and he wanted to have some feeling of confidence that will not happen. Mr. Witt stated the intent of going to a private street may mean to narrow the street down for a legitimate reason, such as the lot size may not allow development of the lot with a 50-foot right-of-way section. When working with the Director of Community Development and developer a compromise may come up to drop off sidewalk off of one side of the roadway. At that point, they have moved out of what "public streets" allow and are into the private street issue and into the flexibility area of private streets. There won't be any law stating the developer has to meet the public street standard. If that is not desired, he suggested keeping the current policy in force that requires "public streets". Mr. Overson questioned if the "public street" also requires space for parking? Mr. Witt stated it requires, in a residential area, a 32 feet width. Mr. Overson stress two of the biggest problems in this city and other cities are lack of sidewalks and lack of parking. He is concerned that developers will come to the City and set up projects with "private street's so that they can get around the requirements under public streets. Mr. Witt stated if a private street is being considered and it is not the standard width, the first question from Council will most likely be what is the reason for the lessor width. Both he and the Director of Community Development had better have a good reason why they are recommending deviation from City standards. Mr. Overson stated when someone builds a home to a specific standard there is an Occupancy Permit. He questioned how does the City validate when a developer builds a partially finished street and then bails out leaving the City with a partially finished street? Mr. Witt explained the developer must provide bonds to cover completion of their work. Mr. Overson noted so now we guarantee the end product meets the standards as close as they can, but 10 years from now how can you guarantee they maintain the street the way they were suppose to? Mr. Witt stated there isn't any guarantee. Mr. Overson stated there is a statement in the proposal that the City policy will be that substandard or subnormal streets will be maintained in perpetuity by the private developer. He does not believe Mr. Witt can make that statement or that the City could make it happen . Mr. Witt explained what was being talked about there was not the TAPE #1155 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 25 of 26 private developer maintaining the street, because they are out of the picture by the time streets fall apart unless something has really gone wrong. Usually, the developer sets up a homeowner association to maintain the streets. If they haven't voted themselves out of existence, such homeowners associations are in place and able to provide that oversight. President Fitz stated she hoped the homeowners associations would maintain them better than the level of maintenance provided by the City. She did not believe the City could hold itself out as a perfect example of maintaining street. Mr. Overson questioned if private streets allow the use of speed bumps? Mr. Witt stated he did not know. Mr. Overson noted his understanding is that it is a state law they cannot be used because of the requirement for access by emergency vehicles. He believes that the developers believe they can provide speed bumps. President Fitz stated if we want more development in the City we need to look at alternative to what has been offered before. Supposing you were developing a piece of property with 2-bedroom homes for either retired people or single individuals without children. They might want running trails through their development or if they were developing an area where lots of children would be involved they may want bike paths rather than sidewalks. She could see this proposal would be a good tool for people to plan their development. She questioned if such things as dedicated bike paths rather than sidewalks be something looked at for a private street? Mr. Witt stated for that sort of thing he didn't know why it could be considered for a public street as well. Mrs. Fitz stated she currently lives on a private street that was built and blacktopped 20 years ago and it is as good today as when it was first built. Mr. Dawklns stated did not want to leave the impression that all developers who come into Bremerton are crooks. He emphasized there are many gated communities in California and Arizona that are run by a homeowners' association. He believes those kinds of developments are the future and what Bremerton is experiencing is "in the dark ages". He cautioned against micro managing and putting up stumbling blocks in front of progress for the development of Bremerton. Mr. Waibel stated he views Council's action as not approving an ordinance. What is being presented is a recommended concept for amending an ordinance and Council is providing input on how they want the ordinance to read. He takes exception to Mr. Dawkins' comment about Council micro managing the issue. He is not sure if he will still be on Council at #1281 TAPE #1155 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 1, 1993 Page 26 of 26 the time the ordinance is approved and now is the time for his giving input on the process. All concerns about what should be in the ordinance need to be expressed at this time and then go ahead and decide whether or not this concept is acceptable. He has heard most people saying we would like to create that flexibility if we can maintain the integrity of private streets up to City standards so that the City could take over, if needed. Mr. Overson questioned the average value of a home in the City of Bremerton compared to the County? Mr. Dawkins stated new homes in outlying areas fall in the $100-120,000 and in the City $95 100,000 for older homes. Mr. Overson stated his point was the reason for the variation is because of the way the City has been developed with too small of lots, constrictive transportation system, no parking, and no sidewalks. He believes a lot of problems were allowed to be built by people who managed the municipality incorrectly. The function of Council members is to ask questions to make sure that in the future we have a better situation than we have now. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve the recommendations for the concept of amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow private streets serving more four or more lots and the ordinance developed based on Council's approval taking into consideration comments made by them during this public hearing. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:07 P.M. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk EILEEN FITZ, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/EF/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault